NOW that the murky world of party political funding has finally been subjected to some welcome daylight, the big players are finding themselves strapped for cash. Potential donors don't want to be tarred with the same brush as our elected leaders and, to add to the parties' woes, membership is haemorrhaging.

It may well be that public funding of future general elections will prove to be the best, fairest and most transparent solution.

But now Labour's ruling National Executive is reported to be planning another raid on the public purse - to pay for security for party events other than annual conferences which already receive grant aid.

This really will not do. There is no question that the Prime Minister and other senior members of the cabinet should be fully protected as they go about their democratic duties. But party functions? Why should society have to cough-up for those too when they are of no benefit to anyone but party members?

The Labour Party currently has an "operating deficit" - what most people would call an overdraft - of #27m. Last year it was in the black by some #14.5m. By any reckoning this is a sizeable reversal of fortunes, caused by people "voting with their feet" and leaving an organisation they presumably consider has betrayed their principles and ignored their voice.

Well, there's a price to pay for venturing down that route, and there's no reason why the essentially non-party-political public should see its hard-earned taxes squandered just because former party members have become disenchanted.

However another proposal to help political parties make ends meet and live within their means is much more acceptable - namely reducing the amount they can spend on general election campaigning.

The standard of argument inflicted on the electorate in the form of puerile, misleading posters attacking their opponents, and self-serving broadcasts does nothing to endear would-be voters who crave only facts and figures and policies honestly and soberly presented.

If anything they are throwing good money after bad and achieving precisely the opposite effect to that intended.

Restricting the volume of this, often offensive, material from our streets and living rooms would be of benefit to, and a blessing for all concerned.